HomeMy WebLinkAboutA008 - Letter to City Council with alternatives for parking To: Ames City,,Council Members
Concerning: Item #17, October 25 , 1983 Council Meeting
Concerning the parking regulation alternatives for PrairieView East, it
appears as though a very workable fourth alternative has not been con-
sidered, i.e. , change from alternate parking, to either east side or west
side parking on a semi-permanent basis.
Until the present the city staff has considered only the curves at the
south end of Prairie View as a potential hazard to homeowners because
of a possible restriction to emergency vehicle travel. Although the
curves in fact did present an actual problem, the potential for addi-
tional problems is present along the straight portion of the road
joining 24th Street. Several circumstances contribute to this potential.
1. Because this portion is lined by duplexes on both sides for
most of its length and because many duplex dwellers are two-vehicle
families , there is often a nearly solid line of vehicles along both
sides of the street in this areal when there are no parking regulations.
2 . Because the street serves only as an access to the residents
on it, there is often considerable delay, sometimes as long as two days,
between the end of a snowfall and removal of snow by the city. Because
many cars are parked along both sides of the street, snow removal when
it does occur is poor at best. Consequently, it is not unusual to find
one and sometimes several cars stuck or stalled for variable periods of
time under these circumstances.
3. Since Prairie View is a dead-end street, emergency vehicles
would be entirely prevented from reaching the southern area until the
stalled vehicles were removed, a time interval which could easily exceed
15 to 20 minutes under the best of circumstances. It certainly would
require as long to remove the stalled vehicle as it would have to have
removed the vehicle parked along the curve in the earlier incident.
It appears that most of the legitimate argument for removing the restric-
tions as they now exist comes from the duplex dwellers who find it very
annoying to change vehicles from side to side at inconvenient hours.
This is certainly understandable, and I believe the fourth alternative
would eliminate this undesirable aspect.
The problem of increased speed along this portion when cars are not
parked along both sides is a matter for separate concern. It is my
opinion that where playing children are concerned, the most dangerous
condition possible is that which allows a child to step out into the
road from between parked cars . Since the driver cannot see the child,
there is no chance to slow down and no place in which to swerve inorder
to prevent an accident. When cars are parked along one side only,
drivers tend to stay further away from parked cars, and in addition,
have adequate visibility to observe children from the clear side. If
excessive speed is still considered a problem, more restrictive speed
limits , i .e . , 15 MPH, could be installed and rigidly enforced until
complied by. If a particular individual (s) is involved, a visit by a
neighborhood spokesperson (s) might quickly remedy the situation.
The term "semi-permanent" was used in the initial wording of the fourth
alternative to allow for switching of the designated "No Parking" side
on a 6-month or yearly interval in order to be equitable for both sides.
The posts for mounting signs are already in place. I feel confident
that several individuals in the neighborhood, or me personally if need
be, would change the signs on July 1 and January 1, or yearly if more
desire a yearly switch.
In summary, I feel that the fourth alternative offers these advantages:
1. Eliminates restriction of emergency vehicle movement on the
curves and on the straight ways.
2 . Allows better visibility to motorists and enhances child safety
even at the risk of greater vehicle speed.
3 . Allows better, cleaner removal of snow.
4 . Eliminates the inconvenience of late evening vehicle switching
in order to comply with alternating side parking as it now exists.
I hope the Council will give full consideration to this proposal in
order to reach a decision equitable to both duplex occupants and single
residence owners.
W. A. Hagemoser
2054 Prairie View East